Abadi v. Ashcroft

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60423
Summary Calendar
MARWAN JWEIED ABADI, also known as Mark Abadi
Petitioner
v
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A77 449 583
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marwan Jweied Abadi has filed a petition for review of a
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming
the denial of Abadi’s motion to reopen his removal proceeding.
Abadi was ordered removed in absentia on June 1, 1999, when he
failed to appear for his removal hearing.
Abadi argues that the BIA abused its discretion in light of
evidence that he failed to receive notice of the removal hearing.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60423
-2-
He also argues that the BIA’s decision was an abuse of discretion
because the lack of notice violated his due process rights.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
parties and have determined, in view of the substantial evidence
that Abadi provided the address to which notice of his removal
hearing was mailed, that the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to reopen. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001); Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d
487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Likewise, because the mailing of
notice to the last address provided by Abadi does not violate
due process, see United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733,
735-36 (5th Cir. 1995), Abadi has not shown an abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, Abadi’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --